From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13588 invoked by alias); 23 Jul 2010 21:06:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 13537 invoked by uid 48); 23 Jul 2010 21:06:09 -0000 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100723210609.13536.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug debug/45048] duplicate DW_TAG_variable In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg02578.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #1 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-23 21:06 ------- I suppose the duplicate is due to the "i" inside of "f". But inside of f I see: <2><78>: Abbrev Number: 7 (DW_TAG_lexical_block) <79> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x3 <7d> DW_AT_high_pc : 0x8 <3><81>: Abbrev Number: 4 (DW_TAG_variable) <82> DW_AT_name : i <84> DW_AT_decl_file : 1 <85> DW_AT_decl_line : 6 <86> DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name: (indirect string, offset: 0xb): _ZN1S1iE <8a> DW_AT_type : <0x5c> <8e> DW_AT_external : 1 <8f> DW_AT_declaration : 1 I think this would be clearer if "i" were declared using DW_AT_import, or at the very least using the outer declaration as a specification. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45048